We Don't Support Gropers except for Bill Clinton
In a recent post, Ann Althouse rightly pokes fun at a picture of a group of left-leaning bloggers who met with and posed with Bill Clinton. Professor Althouse points out the irony of a female blogger from a "feminist" blog standing in front of Clinton posing in a rather provocative stance. When the blogger, Jessica, comes to protest on Professor Althouse's blog that she is being judged for her looks (yes, she is pretty clueless), she gets this dressing down from the professor:
Well, the irony to me is that the same left-leaning "feminist" types fawn over, and show support for Bill Clinton--one of the biggest gropers and sexual harrassers around--all the while shrieking that if a man tries to touch them in a bar, all bets are off and physical violence will follow. In response to my post about whether or not a woman should use a violent reaction in response to being almost touched in a bar, the "feminists" came out in full force to say that I was supporting gropers when I said that using violence in that setting as an initial reaction was not the best idea.
But, apparently, if the man is powerful and a real sociopath--uhh, I mean charmer--these "feminists" sing a different tune. Groping, sexual harassment, and unwanted advances from such a doll (with beautiful blue eyes at that!) are A-OK with them and here is the picture to prove it. You go, girls!
GROPER'S SUPPORT GROUP
Update: Well, I guess Jessica from the Feministing blog who is featured in the Clinton picture above is making the rounds to various blogs to stand up for her honor. She writes:
My response---
Jessica,
I really do not care how you look in the picture -- I care that you were in the picture at all. Really, posing with Bill Clinton as the poster boy for women's rights? Come on....I would have been flipping him a bird for making a fool of me and my gender.
If you were a gay-rights activist, would you happily pose with David Duke?
Update II: Jessica offers a very reasonable response:
My response:
Update III: Seriously people, the breast thing is getting really dull--I do not give a damn if women want to put their breasts all over the internet--unless they have a political agenda that is hypocritical. As you can see, the t-shirts I have worn on the internet are proof of how little I care if women model t-shirts etc., their tits etc.
However, when you have a political message that contradicts the wearing of these t-shirts, it is fair game to call a person out on it. I am not holding myself out as a feminist blog opposed to sexual harassment and then running out to get my picture made with Bill Clinton--if I did, I would see myself as the hypocrit I would rightly be.
Again, children, this is not about breasts--it is about the politics of "feminists" who balk at the idea that they cannot break the fingers of men who approach them in a bar and then have the gall to actually defend a group of "feminists" who hang out with Mr. Happy Hands himself. Just my observation. Now I have to get going--thanks for all the links from your angry blogs--it really helps boost my traffic!
Update IV: The real reason lefty bloggers who dine with Clinton are so upset.
Jessica: I'm not judging you by your looks. (Don't flatter yourself.) I'm judging you by your apparent behavior. It's not about the smiling, but the three-quarter pose and related posturing, the sort of thing people razz Katherine Harris about. I really don't know why people who care about feminism don't have any edge against Clinton for the harm he did to the cause of taking sexual harrassment seriously, and posing in front of him like that irks me, as a feminist. So don't assume you're the one representing feminist values here. Whatever you call your blog....
Well, the irony to me is that the same left-leaning "feminist" types fawn over, and show support for Bill Clinton--one of the biggest gropers and sexual harrassers around--all the while shrieking that if a man tries to touch them in a bar, all bets are off and physical violence will follow. In response to my post about whether or not a woman should use a violent reaction in response to being almost touched in a bar, the "feminists" came out in full force to say that I was supporting gropers when I said that using violence in that setting as an initial reaction was not the best idea.
But, apparently, if the man is powerful and a real sociopath--uhh, I mean charmer--these "feminists" sing a different tune. Groping, sexual harassment, and unwanted advances from such a doll (with beautiful blue eyes at that!) are A-OK with them and here is the picture to prove it. You go, girls!
GROPER'S SUPPORT GROUP
Update: Well, I guess Jessica from the Feministing blog who is featured in the Clinton picture above is making the rounds to various blogs to stand up for her honor. She writes:
Helen, you're being disingenuous about my response to the Althouse. I didn't complain about the POST judging my looks, but rather the comments in the thread doing so. Which, if you read them, are clearly completely focused on the way I looked. So please, if you’re going to post about this—at least be honest.
I’m not even going to touch the fact that you think standing for a picture is “provocative.”
My response---
Jessica,
I really do not care how you look in the picture -- I care that you were in the picture at all. Really, posing with Bill Clinton as the poster boy for women's rights? Come on....I would have been flipping him a bird for making a fool of me and my gender.
If you were a gay-rights activist, would you happily pose with David Duke?
Update II: Jessica offers a very reasonable response:
And I think that's a completely valid argument. But then why link to a post that became all about my breasts? Don't you think that's beneath the conversation you'd like to have?
My response:
Thanks for offering something that can start a logical conversation. I am sorry if your looks got dragged into this, but I assume that it was the posturing of your body--that you looked so proud etc. to be with Bill Clinton etc. that led others to believe that you "approved" of his past behavior. I realize that maybe you did feel proud--that you were invited to go meet a former President--I can understand that. However, given the values you say that you are for--women's rights, the right not to be sexually harrassed in the workplace etc., can you really say that posing with him was the right thing to do? If I was anti-war and posed with Bush, smiling the whole time with a weapon in my hand, would you not wonder about me and point out my hypocrisy? BTW, this is not the case for me--I would be fine with posing with President Bush etc. but that is another story.
Update III: Seriously people, the breast thing is getting really dull--I do not give a damn if women want to put their breasts all over the internet--unless they have a political agenda that is hypocritical. As you can see, the t-shirts I have worn on the internet are proof of how little I care if women model t-shirts etc., their tits etc.
However, when you have a political message that contradicts the wearing of these t-shirts, it is fair game to call a person out on it. I am not holding myself out as a feminist blog opposed to sexual harassment and then running out to get my picture made with Bill Clinton--if I did, I would see myself as the hypocrit I would rightly be.
Again, children, this is not about breasts--it is about the politics of "feminists" who balk at the idea that they cannot break the fingers of men who approach them in a bar and then have the gall to actually defend a group of "feminists" who hang out with Mr. Happy Hands himself. Just my observation. Now I have to get going--thanks for all the links from your angry blogs--it really helps boost my traffic!
Update IV: The real reason lefty bloggers who dine with Clinton are so upset.
posted by Helen at 6:13 AM
146 Comments:
"Feminism" = "Support Democratic candidates." That's all it means nowadays.
OK, perhaps file this under "stupid man" but I am missing the reason for the brouhaha. OK, the lady in the middle is posing, and her shirt is a little tight. But at least of former pres is looking at the camera and not her attributes.
Isn't it OK if lefties look hoochie? Not that this is particularly hoochie, maybe hoochie lite. I thought it was us conservatives who wore the black suits. Hmmm, I am not sure what all you libertarians wear. Today at work (grrr) I am wearing a white collared shirt with a nice maroon and taupe plaid, black pants, the same old almost worn out docksiders and dark socks with little designs on them. I wonder if I dress like a libertarian? I need a haircut so I am pretty sure I coif like a leftie.
But really, what is the big deal? I mean this sincerely as a question, not as a way of blowing off the issue which I find mysterious.
Trey
Trey,
I do not care how the woman looks necessarily--what I object to is that these so-called feminists who say that they will break the fingers of any man who will dare come near them in a bar are willing to ooh and ahhh over the one of the most infamous gropers and sexual harassers in history. Does this make sense to you?
Other layman's opinion - disordered narcissist, too secure in her self-esteem.
Meade,
I think you hit the nail on the head--many of these women have too much self-esteem, leading to their sense of entitlement and acting out in anger and "tantrums" when anyone so much as disagrees with them. So much for an open discussion.
Doc,
A similar sense of entitlement led Bill Clinton to his career as a serial harasser -- hitting on subordinates was/is, in his mind, his right.
The sad irony is that it's these same self-styled "feminists," often the most passionate and vocal in defending the right to sovereignty over one's own body, who willfully turn a blind eye to a fellow partisan's behavior that contributes to compromising the right of all to equal opportunity in the workplace and sovereignty over one's own body.
Great post -- I used to think I was a feminist until I went to NYU and took a feminism class. Whoa.
So President Clinton is now a "sociopath." Hmmmm.
But "the Left" is unhinged with its unfair personal attacks on President Bush.
You people crack me up.
Anonymous 11:36:
Well--maybe sociopath is a little strong--but according to J. Reid Meloy, a renowned forensic psychologist in his book, "Violence Risk and Threat Assessment," he states that "you can always count on psychopaths making the news, usually self-destructing after a period of callous manipulation and exploitation of other people for a number of years. President Bill Clinton evidenced some psychopathic traits in his lying to the American public about his affair with Monica Lewinsky, and then his subsequent use of his friends to protect him, as he knew full well they were lying on his behalf. He was impeached, but escaped removal from office. I don't think Clinton is a full-blown, primary psychopath: but like some other politicians, he is psychopathic and narcissistic enough--in his case, mixed with a certain amount of dependency--to succeed in that profession" (page 99 of the Threat Assessment book).
So there you go--not a full blown psychopath--just psychopathic and narcissistic enough to think he can get away with anything--including duping some young feminists into believing that he seriously gives a damn about them other than using them for what they can do for him.
Appearance does matter, it's what we have eyes for.
Were I attending a meeting like this one, I would have dressed according to the image I wanted to project: professional. Add to that requirement the fact that the meeting was with a man with a known history of mixing up sex with business, I wouldn't have chosen to dress or stand in quite the way Miss Gray Shirt did. Not if I wanted to retain credibility as a supporter of wymins' rights anyway.
Retread
Jessica,
I really do not care how you look in the picture--I care that you were in the picture at all. Really, posing with Bill Clinton as the poster boy for women's rights? Come on....I would have been flipping him a bird for making a fool of me and my gender.
I read an interesting article which cited scientific studies showing that sexual arousal cancels intellect. The "duh" factor made me laugh out loud.
This tends to be used to the benefit of the seller in the advertising industries. They really don't want us thinking critically about their product. However, in the article which was about modest dress in academic settings, it works against both teacher and student when a female professor is wearing a short skirt.
The writer tested the theory by conducting a series of experiments with attractive women giving two lectures. In the first, the lecturer would dress modestly. In the second, she would dress more provocatively. Immediately following each lecture, a quiz would be given. Scores on the quiz were significantly lower among the male students when the lecturer's clothing was more revealing.
I think most adult women know this intuitively, and deliberately dress in a manner that attracts men's eyes. Most of them also won't be willing to admit it.
Althouse and others claim to be feminists, but not reflexive lefties. I have no idea what that would look like. (Surely it's not easily found at Althouse. She says she's a feminist, but then never consistently differentiates herself from other women in a way that would define her feminism.) Maybe someone can explain the objectives of non-partisan feminists. As for the vast majority of feminists wedded to the left, I'm pretty sure I understand their objectives.
Helen, thanks for splaining that one to me. That certainly did make sense to me, and tickled my funny bone at the same time! I am not sure why, but I am still giggling.
As I think about it, the left, including certain feminists, droll over bill for one reason: He managed to WIN. Isn't that the only focus of the left right now, regaining power? No real ideas, no real agenda, just shallow reasons why Bush sucks so vote for us.
I mean, I have differences with Bush too. His administration has spent too much money, the border and immigration situation are a shambles on his watch. But honestly, can the left criticize that? What would they say, "We would have spent too much money on failed social programs rather than the war?" "Democrats: We have Hispanic gardners too." So there is a credibility gap.
I do hear that Mr. Clinton is very charismatic, even his honest detractors admit that. But for a feminist to ally herself with someone who abuses women is beyond the pale. I get it now. Thanks.
Trey
Jake asked a really interesting question. "Althouse and others claim to be feminists, but not reflexive lefties. I have no idea what that would look like."
There are non lefty feminists. They disguise themselves as HUMANISTS!!!!! I am a Christian Humanist, that means that I am interested in the gender expectations and roles, and come at it from a Christian world view. Not the men eat first and women serve them view, the Jesus was crucified in part beacause of the scandalous way he treated women, things like talking to them and healing them. Sorry, this is not supposed to be a religious post, but I figured that seeing Christian and Humanist and Feminist in the same post from someone positing that they are compatible might be jarring.
So for me, and lots of people kinda like me, it is not boys against the girls, but a search for ways that my internalized sexism and cultural stereotypes and limits hurt and help men and women, and ways to make things better. Honestly, I believe that women are and have been more put upon by our culture than men, but I also recognize how men have been injured.
Hope that helps.
Trey
Jessica,
Thanks for offering something that can start a logical conversation. I am sorry if your looks got dragged into this, but I assume that it was the posturing of your body--that you looked so proud etc. to be with Bill Clinton etc. that led others to believe that you "approved" of his past behavior. I realize that maybe you did feel proud--that you were invited to go meet a former President--I can understand that. However, given the values you say that you are for--women's rights, the right not to be sexually harrassed in the workplace etc., can you really say that posing with him was the right thing to do? If I was anti-war and posed with Bush, smiling the whole time with a weapon in my hand, would you not wonder about me and point out my hypocrisy? BTW, this is not the case for me--I would be fine with posing with President Bush etc. but that is another story.
One little footnote to all of this - you refer to it as a provocative pose and your quote from Althouse says something similar. The thing that's funny - I'm a professional photographer and if I just randomly shoot some people there are some generational differences about how people stand. Do you just kind of all square up to the camera or do you "pose?". Younger women - especially if they're fashionable and attractive - tend to pose pretty much like Jessica just because that's what they've always done and it doesn't occur to them that it doesn't work well in a group of more than 2-3 people. I have a suspicion that because of digital cameras and camera phones there's some age cutoff where everybody spends a LOT of time snapping pictures of each other and yes, posing.
I understand your followup that you have issues with this group fawning over Clinton in the first place, but I think Althouse in particular was going for the cheap laughs and did it in a way that basically just makes her look out of touch.
I read Instapundit every day; there are usually links there that I find newsworthy. I read Ann Althouses's blog when it's linked from Instapundit, although I don't have her bookmarked. I usually agree with what she has to say, although I thought she might have gone a bit over the top in this particular case. I'd never read Jessica's blog at all, although I went there in order to get her side of the story.
I can understand why Jessica feels picked on. I also must say that she is indeed an attractive and eye-catching woman. But I think that Helen has a point here: When a blogger's raison d'etre is feminism, equal rights and equal treatment for women, that is hard to reconcile with former President Clinton's behavior.
Beyond that, I'm not getting into the catfight.
"one of the biggest gropers and sexual harrassers around"
I defy you to substantiate both groping and sexual harrassment charges, let alone "one of the biggest". This is one of the biggest andmost common canards on the right, and allegations are not substantiation, particularly when the original statement are worded as statements of fact.
I'm wondering if y'all would be as outraged if Jessica had had her picture taken with a Republican with a long record of sexual harassment, say, Arnold Schwarzenegger.
My father-in-law often gets praise for being a good photographer. He told me his secret: Take lots of pictures and throw the bad ones away.
Having seen the flickr photostream, it's obvious to me that this photo was the worst of the bunch. Had it been tossed, there would have been no kerfuffle.
Paraphrasing here-
"A woman who has too much self-esteem and that leads to entitlement."
IMHO, any woman who grows into adulthood in this society and his a modicum of respect of self-esteem and respect for herself is clearly doing something right. Especially young woman who are as bright and industrious as Jessica.
Jessica is an attractive, educated young woman who I'm positive is not without her flaws, quirks, or whatever. She's probably as conflicted as the rest of us. I think holding her up to scrutiny the way the folks here at this blog have shows where your sensibilities lie.
I sense that this is scary for a lot of leaders of your blog.
A young woman? Educated and attractive? Better beat her down before she gots to uppity.
Dr. Helen, you sound like an abusive spouse.
Feminists' free pass to Clinton is an apt illustration of the incoherence of gender politics today. No feminist has explained this satisfactorily to me yet.
Similar Liberal incoherence is also evident in the outrage directed at a racially divided Survivor. We segregate by (non-white) race all the time in our culture--Hispanic graduations, a Black Congressional Caucus, to name but a few--so why should we not in entertainment? I am hoping Survivor will not stoop to privileging old stereotypes but will reveal the contradictions inherent in racial politics: "everybody is the same" but "we have to stick together with our People (as long as they are not just American)." The Asians' perplexing discussion of who exactly is Asian is a good sign.
I sense that this is scary for a lot of leaders of your blog.
A young woman? Educated and attractive? Better beat her down before she gots to uppity.
Dr. Helen, you sound like an abusive spouse.
And I sense that you have no idea what you're talking about. The tried-and-true lefty tactic: if you disagree with me, you're probably a bigot anyway.
A few years ago one of the lesser NY newspapers had one of their more accomplished male interns respond to an ad by Clinton's NY office looking for interns. He didn't get a call.
So he sent in a resume for his very accomplished girlfriend. She didn't get a call.
So he sent in a resume for his less accomplished sister with a picture of her in a sweater. Same kind of pose as Ms. Jessica. She got a call from his chief of staff that afternoon, wanting to know if she could start the next day.
As for Jessica's picture, the reason the pose is seen as provocotive is the specifics of her pose. It may have been catching her in the moment, but it's a pose that's often used deliberately. Shoulders back, body facing camera left (in this case) and head pointing slightly camera RIGHT - opposite the body. If here eyes were looking down, instead of into the camera, it would be a classic Playboy pose.
(before you slag me, I a woman who worked at Playboy in the 60's, I've seen 3 million frames with that pose.)
Jordan,
Yes, and a tactic that no longer holds any power--being called a bigot, racist, etc. is so common from the left these days that it gets a little dull (yawn).....
So you want to know how "feminist" Jessica can pose in support of Clinton. Years ago I knew a politically strident woman working in the PR department at Simon & Schuster. The PC rhetoric about women's rights and unfair distribution of wealth and political skullduggery in high places and yada yada yada never stopped around this woman. Everyone around her walked on eggshells.
So she has to promote a book by Roy Cohn. Well, she told everyone what a sleaze Cohn was, of course. Until he sent her a really expensive paperweight as a gift. After that, Cohn was the greatest, most generous guy in the world.
It's for all the Jessicas of this world that the line 'Methinks thou dost protest too much' was written.
Bottom line: if he asked her up to his room afterwards for coffee, would she have gone?
And is that invitation what she was angling for in posing like that?
I'm saying "yes" and "yes".
MoniCA
JessiCA
Any other similarities besides black hair and an adoring smile?
Don't we need to establish that Clinton was a serial groper before we castigate a feminist for standing in a picture with him? I'm not seeing much evidence being offered besides the assumptions and a consensual, if severely ill-advised, relationship
Mike @ 1:12 said: "I'm wondering if y'all would be as outraged if Jessica had had her picture taken with a Republican with a long record of sexual harassment, say, Arnold Schwarzenegger."
Yes.
BTW, Arnold better get busy if he wants to match Bill Clinton's record of sexual harassment.
What a bunch of inbred losers you folks are.
Get out of the house, meet some real people.
Just, you know, grow up.
Anon
Hey, Helen, aren't you the idiot who came all unglued because some woman in a bar strongarmed a guy who groped her, and you were all, Oh, the poor guy?
You just don't like women.
Now that's what I call castigation.
What a joke!
President Bill Clinton evidenced some psychopathic traits in his lying to the American public about his affair with Monica Lewinsky, and then his subsequent use of his friends to protect him, as he knew full well they were lying on his behalf. He was impeached, but escaped removal from office. I don't think Clinton is a full-blown, primary psychopath: but like some other politicians, he is psychopathic and narcissistic enough--in his case, mixed with a certain amount of dependency--to succeed in that profession" (page 99 of the Threat Assessment book).
George Bush has lied to the American people about quite a few things. Let's start with saying "we don't torture", and "we found the weapons" and "no one could've predicted the breach of the levees" and that he'd fire anyone who was involved with Plame-- and that's just for starters.
Nixon lied to the American people, as did Reagan. "We didn't trade arms for hostages."
Are they "psychopaths" too?
BTW, after Clinton was impeached by the bed-sheet sniffing, partisan House, he had a 70% approval rating. Some "escape."
What a piece of work!
What do you call a stupid slag who's also ugly? Dr. Stupid Ugly Slag.
Your jealousy of the pretty blogger is stupid and ugly.
Jessica,
And you haven't answered my question--why did you pose with a man who is known for sexually abusing women--or perhaps you are of the pursuasion like so many in your party that Bill Clinton has never done anything to any woman--if so, I hope you will one day open your eyes. Denial only works for so long.
Apparently, Dr "Melon" doesn't mind thrusting out her puppies in photos either.
Seriously, you're a quack, "Dr." You and that insipid Ann Althouse make a fine pair...so to speak.
Anonymous @ 2:11 PM,
On Article II, charging that the President "...has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice"..., the vote was 50-50, with all Democrats and five Republicans voting to acquit.
Sixty-seven votes from the Senate were needed to convict. I'd say he "escaped" by seventeen votes.
-----------------------------------------------
Evidence, please,
re: serial groping... When Bill Clinton said, "I have accepted responsibility for what I did wrong in my personal life," what do you suppose he was referring to? Letting Osama Bin Laden off the hook?
Well, its just a fact that her proudly outthrust breasts just call attention to the entire matter- it may be regretable that something like that draws the eye and starts the conversation, but if you read her blog she has post after post decrying the most trivial "sexist" behaviour, yet she sets herself up like that. And I think she's being at best disingenuous, if not flatly dishonest, to say she didn't realize being a young attractive girl in a form fitting shirt with a prominent bust standing directly in front of the Groper in Chief wouldn't elicit comment. I personally think she did it on purpose, maybe she was starstruck or actually attracted to the guy or just wanted some attention. Its too much to be believed she just "happened" to be the one picked to stand in FRONT of Bill, normally in such a gathering the main guest would have no one in front of him, the picture would be him in the center with the group gathered around him- in this pic he is actually having to crane his neck to look past her, which unfortunately gives the appearance he's ogling her :p
Finally, its a good time to point out AGAIN how 'feministers' (her own decription) completely sold out their principles, so stridently defended against Bob Packwood, a Republican of course, mere months before, but since Clenis is a Dem he and pro-choice he gets a pass. And we aren't even going on to the tangental point that for all the Dems beetching about Republicans being the "white" party, that wide spectrum of lib bloggers looks awfully vanilla, if you don't count the first black president.
Hey, one woman's 'sexual harasser' is another's 'great guy'. It's all in how she views the guy.
BTW, I don't agree that women should become violent with men making a pass at or even groping them. A simply 'f-you' usually suffices.
This post is about the level of that mean old nun I had in the 10th grade. She saw sexual promiscuity in all of her 10th grade girls and punished us accordingly.
Funny I've seen this repeatedly since: women who either don't have access to a healthy sex life or who are sexually/emotionally disfunctional talk like this about photos that are as innocuous as this one is.
Someone needs some therapy!
Power and money will turn 99.999999% of feminists into cooing harem girls, at least for 60 minutes or so.
Just a personal observation.
I love this, feminists arguing for the right to act like horny little nymphs.
Of course they are also arguing that they are not acting like horny little nymphs, but they are, oh yes, they are.
Dr. Helen,
You could be taken more seriously on this matter if you and your husband didn't post pictures of YOU wearing far tighter T-shirts than Ms. Valenti's knit top in the Clinton picture, thrusting out your breasts proudly. BIG double-standard.
And you've been very dishonest in saying this whole argument is about being near Clinton (who is rightly mocked for his pathetic, tawdry affair with Lewinksy, in my opinion).
It certainly isn't about that for Ms. Althouse. Althouse kept saying this was about Valenti's "behavior" -- that she was "posing" so provocatively (in Althouse's mind)in what Althouse thought was a very immodest shirt.
So -- is it ALL about proximity to Clinton, for you? It sure isn't with Althouse. If it is about the hypocrisy of feminists standing next to Clinton...well, that's a valid argument, even if I disagree with it.
But if your objection is also that a young woman has the audacity to pose for a picture with supposedly immodest clothing (a characterization with which I totally disagree), and is consciously posing in such a way that her breasts are prominent (again, I think that's all in Althouse's imagination), then...
Well, then you're being VERY hypocritical, given your own pictures on the web. Including the one on your own blog, here, right below the links and Paypal button.
Please clarify whether or not you agree with Althouse that posing in a T-shirt like that per se makes one into a slut.
...And yes, much of what she said leads only to that conclusion about Althouse's mindset.
As for Bill Clinton -- he's fair game. I think he made himself into a joke, and deserves what ge gets. But calling him a "sexual predator" really hurts your OWN credibility.
But if you really do believe that he is a sexual predator, OK. Please point to your similar diagnoses for Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, proud Republican and primetime speaker at the GOP national convention in 2004. He has ACTUALLY groped women over the years, enaged in group sex, and posed nude himself -- as well as having starred in a lot of vile Hollywood movies with nudity and plenty of violence... much of it against women.
So keep diagnosing Clinton if you want. He brought that on himself. But if you don't want to seem like a partisan hypocrite, let's hear a similar diagnosis of California's GOP governor.
(And please remove your offensive T-shirt pictures, or risk the wrath of Ann Althouse!)
What Jessica said:
What I DO have a problem with, however, is Althouse--and you, through linking to her post--suggesting that it was the "why would a feminist pose with Clinton" question that was at the center of these threads. It wasn't. It was vapid and nasty attacks about my looks, my assumed "behavior" through looking at ONE photo and jokes and assumptions about my sexuality--not my feminist credibility. What's going on now is a bunch of backpeddling to try to make it seem like these posts were about a valid political question rather than a very personal attack.
Exactly. This comports with what I said in my post above.
Althouse claimed to know all about Valenti's personal "behavior" from looking at one innocuous picture, and making the nastiest possible insinuations from it.
Then when called on it, she periodically took the moral-cowardly Coulter / Limbaugh defense of her nastiness: that she was only havin' some fun, and that anyone protesting didn't understand her rapier wit.
THEN when that didn't work, she'd try to turn it into a deadly serious conservation about sexual predators.
But make no mistake -- it originated just as a nasty, catty comment about a young women dressing and posing sluttily. Nothing more noble than that.
Dr. Helen, either you're ignorant of the way Althouse started this whole tempest-in-a-teapoot, or you're playing very disingenous.
This is an almost perfect example of the mutually beneficial relationship of DLC Democratic toadys like Atrios and Jane Hamsher with right wing Taliban Republicans like Mr. and Mrs. Reynolds.
Daou was being subjected to some very legitimate criticism about the racial makeup of the people he invited to meet with Clinton. It exploded into some nasty attacks at Firedog Lake on the woman who raised the issue and *could have* led to an extended debate on the "gatekeeper" status of the big liberal blogs.
But along come Ann Althouse and Helen Reynolds riding to the rescue with the silly issue of Jessica Valenti's breasts. The "liberals" of course latch onto the issue like a starving dog onto a bone. Of course they'd rather debate with Althouse about a silly issue like this and not, for example, why they iced Jonathan Tasini out of the liberal blogosphere and rarely, if ever, even mention the anti-war movement.
"Anonymous" says, above, to support Dr. Helen and Ms. Althouse:
As for Jessica's picture, the reason the pose is seen as provocotive is the specifics of her pose. It may have been catching her in the moment, but it's a pose that's often used deliberately. Shoulders back, body facing camera left (in this case) and head pointing slightly camera RIGHT - opposite the body. If here eyes were looking down, instead of into the camera, it would be a classic Playboy pose.
(before you slag me, I a woman who worked at Playboy in the 60's, I've seen 3 million frames with that pose.)
Assuming you're right, Anonymous -- then you're saying that DR. HELEN HERSELF enjoys posing like a Playboy Bunny!
Look at her T-shirt pictures.
Is Dr. Helen she consciously trying to pose provocatively, like a Playboy model?
If Ann Althouse is to be believed, absolutely YES.
Define irony...A young feminist taking offense at comments on her attractiveness after striking a "look at me" pose in front of Bill Clinton. A man that, due to his well documented history, could easily be seen as thinking "look at the tits on that girl" while he peers around her head.
Jessica,
If you note the appearance of the others in the photo, excluding Clinton, you will see an example of individuals who place their intrinsic qualities higher than appearance in a photo.
It seems to be the so-called "feminists" who keep bringing up the breasts here.
And Helen "Reynolds" is actually Helen Smith. I guess modern feminists don't know any women who keep their own name.
I am just hoping that Dr Helen and Jessica have a pay per view cat fight to prove who is right! If that is misoginist, then it is less so than spurting peter tracks on my interns dress, so I am showing improvement by golly!
It's evident from the writing on Feministing that its contributors are very young. Also the site smacks of the sort of feminism that's chosen to go with your shoes. Perhaps this is their editorial direction, but whatever the motive it doesn't suggest an outlet that's going to grapple with weighty ethical decisions. Hence the snarky comments, and cries of objectification, against Dr's Althouse and Smith.
I suspect that Jessica's actions were entirely innocent. She may not have recognized Bill Clinton's reputation, or agrees with older feminist who have justified his behavior.
Really, posing with Bill Clinton as the poster boy for women's rights? Come on....I would have been flipping him a bird for making a fool of me and my gender.
Photo of Laura Bush posing with Bill Clinton.
http://www.newsday.com/media/photo/2006-02/21834027.jpg
Bush is sending our country down the crapper but you guys still can't get enough of the blue dress...wake up right wing zombies.
Seriously people,
The breast thing is getting really dull--I do not give a damn if women want to put their breasts all over the internet--unless they have a political agenda that is hypocritical. As you can see, the t-shirts I have worn on the internet are proof of how little I care if women model t-shirts etc., their tits etc.
However, when you have a political message that contradicts the wearing of these t-shirts, it is fair game to call a person out on it. I am not holding myself out as a feminist blog opposed to sexual harassment and then running out to get my picture made with Bill Clinton--if I did, I would see myself as the hypocrit I would rightly be.
Again, children, this is not about breasts--it is about the politics of "feminists" who balk at the idea that they cannot break the fingers of men who approach them in a bar and then have the gall to actually defend a group of "feminists" who hang out with Mr. Happy Hands himself. Just my observation. Now I have to get going--thanks for all the links from your angry blogs--it really helps boost my traffic!
Speaking about photos, when is your husband going to stop using his sister-in-law as an exotic prop?
Chumley:
then you're saying that DR. HELEN HERSELF enjoys posing like a Playboy Bunny!
Look at her T-shirt pictures.
Is Dr. Helen she consciously trying to pose provocatively, like a Playboy model?
If Ann Althouse is to be believed, absolutely YES.
Quote for truth.
ah yes, I remember that photo, we were shooting a scene for the second installment of The Matrix trilogy, which unfortunately got cut from the final edit.
I cant believe they cut us, the power creme de la creme but left that nutso professor Dr. Cornel West, in the trilogy.... ah well, the catering was excellent, only surpassed by the L.A. studio interns.
I daresay many feminists appreciate Clinton's championing of the Family Medical Leave Act (which mandated an employee's ability to take up to 3 mos leave for family needs such as child care or elder care.) This has had a huge impact for women and families in this country.
You should have a little forensic psych study done on yourself. You sound more than a little off balance.
yeah Bren,
That was some great legislation, I got jacked off 4 times and blown 2 by congresswomen lobbying for that piece.... good times....
One of the reasons for the division in our country (imho) is the utter disregard for logic that is being shown, by educated people nonetheless, in our public discourse.
Any function one attends indicates one's approval of not only the subject of the function but also all aspects of the character of the other attendees? Are we to conclude that a forensic psychologist's habit of meeting with the criminally insane suggests her approval of such behaviors? If a photo were taken of one of these meetings would the forensic psychologist be required to assume a posture indicative of her disapproval? Perhaps it is the habit of forensic psychologists to wave their finger disapprovingly throughtout the interview just in case prison personal should capture an image from the security cameras. (My friend, a forensic psychologist in CA tells me this is not part of her routine, but who knows?)
When one poses for a picture it isn't that person posing for a picture but one's comment on the others in the picture. Since there are many other people in the picture, how would each person have stood in a way indicating there feelings about every other person in the picture? Is the way she is standing somehow a composite of her feelings about everyone in the picture or are there multiple pictures and this is the one designated for everyone to stand in such a way as to express your feelings about Bill Clinton?
Anyone with a degree in psychology ought to know that if YOU see these things when you look at that picture, it is YOUR projection of your own mind onto a picture of people who are standing for a picture. Psychologists ought to be helping to make that point and not writing about their own projections onto a picture as if they somehow represented reality.
Maybe Dr. Smith could share with us some of the research that we may not be aware of that support drawing these far-ranging conclusions from a group photo.
I think that after reviewing that research we will all be better equipped to know just what to project onto Dr. Smith's t-shirt pictures. I hope she will find the time to share this research with us or perhaps write a book about just what we can discern from group photos. What can we assume FDR was fantasizing about Stalin as he dangled that provacative cigarette between his lusty fingers at Yalta? How can we discern how the Beatles really felt about one another from that fascinating Abbey Road album cover? I think it would make a great read.
"Dr." Helen is a idiotic old bat.
Take a look at yourself in the mirror, you old prune, before you attack young, intelligent, liberal, good-looking women. You are a freak!
You and Ann Althouse truly are vicious, ugly, and stupid women. You also both need to lose some weight. And if I were you, I would ease on the Botox, it is not doing you any good.
Let's see how you like being attacked on your looks and your lack of youth. As for your brains, yours and Althouse's have clearly being taken over by rot.
"Again, children, this is not about breasts"
Ah, the Althouse technique: try to infantilize your critics when you can't answer them intelligently. Althouse hands out grades like a schoolmarm; you call other adults "children."
Quite pathetic. Especially from moral and intellectual lightweights like yourselves.
It's even more pathetic now that you've completely chickened out from the argument you and Althouse started. You've proven yourself a cowardly little hypocrite in a tight T-shirt. (Very indecent "behavior" to pose wearing that shirt, according to your schoolmarmy friend Althouse!)
Oh -- do please remember to write a letter to that harlot Laura Bush, immediately, telling her NOT to have her picture with sexual predator Bill Clinton again -- or else you and Ann Althouse will start making nasty remarks about what a slut she is!
As for the increased blog traffic -- to borrow from your pal Althouse -- don't flatter yourself. But do I hope you enjoyed it. That was your fifteen minutes of fame. And it's over now, sorry!
'Bye, Dr. Playboy Bunny-wannabe.
I like to whack off to the pic of Dr. Helen in her tease shirt. Cum on Dr. Helen, say something dirty.
Again, children, this is not about breasts--it is about the politics of "feminists" who balk at the idea that they cannot break the fingers of men who approach them in a bar and then have the gall to actually defend a group of "feminists" who hang out with Mr. Happy Hands himself. Just my observation. Now I have to get going--thanks for all the links from your angry blogs--it really helps boost my traffic!
Oh, bull, dearie. Your shrewish little attack was all about breasts and your (and Titmouse's politics). Jesus, you're as dishonest as your slack-jawed husband.
Exactly what evidence do you have, by the way, about Clinton's "happy hands?"
Ah, the Althouse technique: try to infantilize your critics when you can't answer them intelligently.
Judging by the comments posted by your unhinged buddies, no infantilizing is needed.
Who could ever hope to argue with comments such as:
Take a look at yourself in the mirror, you old prune, before you attack young, intelligent, liberal, good-looking women. You are a freak!
You should have a little forensic psych study done on yourself. You sound more than a little off balance.
How did you get such a nice rack?
Speaking about photos, when is your husband going to stop using his sister-in-law as an exotic prop?
Someone needs some therapy!
Seriously, you're a quack, "Dr." You and that insipid Ann Althouse make a fine pair...so to speak.
What do you call a stupid slag who's also ugly? Dr. Stupid Ugly Slag.
You just don't like women.
What a bunch of inbred losers you folks are.
Get out of the house, meet some real people.
Just, you know, grow up.
Absolutely devastating! Why, just throw in a Nazi analogy or Hitler reference and you will have vanquished us completely!
Go to MyDD, Kos, firedoglake, or pretty much any other progressive blog and you'll find a similar level of discussion.
Progressivism is becoming nothing more than a loosely organized vendetta. They don't really stand for anything, they just claim whatever issue they feel will afford them the greatest opportunity to condemn their enemies.
If you really want to boost your traffic I suggest a black background and more nipple.
Ann Althouse and Dr. Helen raise very pertinent questions about Jessica's photo op with Bill Clinton.
Jessica responds by pointing out that the questions have led to a personally insulting discussion, and that she considers the questions to be unfair in the first place.
I think everyone should step back, acknowledge the other side, and look for common ground. I think both sides have a bit of truth, and both sides have a little bit of a blind spot as well. There are no demons and no pefect angels here (except for the SOB Bill Clinton himself).
I myself would probably never pose with Bill Clinton, but I don't think there's anything wrong about feeling comfortable with your body and looking your best. I respect Jessica's and Ann's and Helen's positions, despite not quite agreeing 100% with any of them (I think I agree about 90% with Dr. Helen, though).
Judging by the comments posted by your unhinged buddies, no infantilizing is needed.
Oh, cry me a friggin' river.
I post what I have to say -- other people can speak for themselves.
But if you want to be judged by YOUR "buddies" -- if guilt by association is OK by you -- then take a gander at all the nasty, ugly comments from your rightwing pals here in this comment thread, on Althouse's site, on Little Green Footballs, and Freerepublic.com. Plenty of nasty stuff about women and minorities there (specific and general -- lots to choose from!). And ENDLESS Nazi analogies.
All from your pals.
So if you really want civilty and maturity, you better denounce all your own "unhinged buddies," and quickly. I haven't seen any of you rightwingers do that yet, though. What you really want is a one-sided fight, where you get to fling mud but then clutch your hankies and cry foul when someone gives your grief back.
Proving once again: it's always OK to be a blatant hypocrite... if you're a Republican!
A "provocative stance?" Are you fucking kidding?
Lady, you ought to be ashamed of yourself.
You've got a pretty nice rack yourself. I'd do you if you'd promise to keep your trap shut.
Oh, I have happy hands alright, i get a nervous itch in my palms when they are not pressed against the comforting warm curvature of a young lady's ass or breast. I blame this condition on my mom, if she had just shown me a bit more affection...
Anyway, I think it was that actress that hid out in europe to stay away from the American media that really showed me my potential, I cant recall her name, but I will remember her ass forever, she denied our liason at first, like we agreed, but then that dumbass Carville sicced the hounds on her and she felt threatened by the IRS so she switched camps. I swear Carville wouldnt know subtlety if it gave him a reach around on a West Virginian mountainside to the sound of fiddles.
Hell, Paula Jones and Kathleen Willey were definite rebukes, you get those when you approach as many women as I do, I can confidently say that I have a better than 85% success rate. I will put my numbers up against any pro sports star...even if my consensual to rape ratio is slightly higher, hey, its like Larry says, git r done.
Jessica responds by pointing out that the questions have led to a personally insulting discussion, and that she considers the questions to be unfair in the first place.
Frankly the fact that Jessica shows no concern for the nature of the attacks being waged by her defenders discounts her protest in my eyes. It looks as though she, and they, are deliberately promoting that she's being 'attacked' because of her appearance. This is a conspicuous attempt to distract attention from the more relevant question of whether feminists are being hypocritical when lauding Bill Clinton.
No guilt by association here. You said she was infantilizing her critics. I simply pointed out that they were doing an admirable job of that on their own.
Jayarbee,
If you're looking for a eunuch, I can't help you ... not that's there anything wrong with that :)
"No guilt by association here. You said she was infantilizing her critics. I simply pointed out that they were doing an admirable job of that on their own."
Ah Jordan, my friend. Regarding "guilt by associaton..."
To quote Inigo Montoya, from the excellent movie THE PRINCESS BRIDE: "I do not think it means what you think it means."
When you ignore real substantive arguments, and pretend that the troll-ish, obscene posters are the actual "critics," you are indeed engaging in guilt by association. And trying to win the argument without actually engaging in it.
In the same way, I could invalidate anything you or Dr. Helen had to say simply by citing all of the posts above signed by the faux-Bill Clinton, which are smarmy, obscene, and juvenile.
And infantile.
You can always find ugly, nasty comments -- on both left- and right-leaning blogs. But it's now common for rightwingers to "nutpick" nasty comments from left blogs and assert that that's the sum total of the discussion.
Personally, I'm still waiting for any rightwinger to take a little responsbility for Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, who are by no means anonymous, immature blog posters, but rightwing media superstars
(You know, the Ann Coulter who said that the 9-11 widows were GLAD that their husbands were killed, since the dead husbands were planning on divorcing them anyway.)
So if it's guilt by association you want -- and you do, despite your misunderstanding of the phrase -- I've got plenty to give you back.
Game, set, match.
I think both sides have a bit of truth, and both sides have a little bit of a blind spot as well.
Oh, crap. I'm thoroughly sick of that argument too, btw.
"Well, Althouse saw something dirty in a picture of a young woman, just standing there HAVING BREASTS, and Dr. Helen chimed in to say that Jessica is a hypocrite (that's spelled with an "e", Dr. H, thanks) for posing with one of the "worst serial gropers" in history (an extramarital affair does not a harasser make).
Screw the fair and balanced bullsh*t. This reeks, and both Althouse and Helen should be ashamed of themselves.
Norah
Helen,
Why are you even writing about this? Don't you have a middle eastern terrorist to waterboard somewhere? Get some secrets out of him 'cause what he did to us on 9/11? Maybe convict him in a secret trial using evidence that he isn't allowed to see in the name of promoting freedom and democracy around the world? Isn't that a much more important discussion? I personally would love to see you, Helen, pose for a picture with President Bush as he fights, even with members of his own party, to repeal the basic Geneva Convention rights and make thubscrews and waterboarding legal. Stand up for what you believe is right. I assume you are also an advocate of torture since you said you'd be fine posing with him. Bush is no sexual harasser, I'll give you that. May God bless all our dead American Soldiers.
There are issues much more important than boobies, right, Helen?
what I object to is that these so-called feminists who say that they will break the fingers of any man who will dare come near them in a bar are willing to ooh and ahhh over the one of the most infamous gropers and sexual harassers in history. Does this make sense to you?
Clinton WAS accused of sexual harassment, so I guess that makes him guilty, guilty, guilty.
Anyway, I eagerly await your denunciation of anyone who's ever posed for a picture with Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Damn, it is almost like they can read our thoughts, thier characterizations of our motivations and intents are just so damn accurate, it is uncanny.
OK, you have found us out, rightwingers in general, and "Dr." Smith (I love those quotation marks btw) and Prof. Reynolds as the titular leaders, or should I say titmouse leaders of our movement, of course ignoring that they are not really republican per say, specifically are horrible human beings and should be banned from the internet. This is obvious due to thier taliban like posing in t-shirts in such a way as to allow thier nipples to protrude thru the thin cotton veneer.
I am particularly regretful of my actions due to the chastisement of chumley, I am not sure of the gender of this poster, but it just kept nailing us time and again, it was unbelievable how perfectly it kept characterizing our vacant intellectual existence, making us collectively realize how much satisfaction we glean by being a mere mirror, or reactionary if you please, of thier shockingly lucent insights. It was a real wake up call to me, and I am sure to all my collective fellow right wingers.
And so, I for one want to repent (sorry, I am not intelligent enough to find a synonym that does not bring to mind Christian teachings). I apologize for my actions here today, and want only to continue forward in a spirit of cooperation and mutual respect with my female counterparts.
Furthermore, I would like to apologize for my juvenile comments as they obviously cheapened the content of this comment thread which was so very importent due to the fact that a young woman had her body insulted, not unlike that poor woman assaulted by the Duke rugby team. In fact, it is apparent that the same attitudes that allowed poor Jessica to be held up for ridicule are close cousins to the very same attitudes that allowed a group of white rugby players to gangbang a poor working stripper of african descent.
Damn this country for what its doing to us as humans, damn it to hell!!!!
Sincerely,
The Fox Bill Clinton,
Harlem, New York
Let's ignore that fact that GeoDuck is a confrere of Thersites and had abetted him in harassment campaigns of such a vicious nature that he was compelled to relinquish his blog to avoid losing his employment. Whatever you do, don't google her moniker to discover some of her other obscene forays into blog commentary.
Jessica Valenti is being sexually harassed right in front of us, and we're not going to stand by and ignore it.
now she's against harassment, because it suits her immediate goal.
---------------------------
Helen baby, is this you?
http://instapundit.com/images/corvidshln.jpg
Nice rack, girlfriend. Were you thinking about Dick Cheney at the time?
Like your picture posted over at Eschaton, Helen.
Posing a little there?
Another hypocrite exposed.
TW
Dr. Helen, don't know if you're following the thread at Althouse, but she's getting her share of nasty sexist remarks from "feminists" as well. You're in good company!
Dr. Smith, this should prove your point:
http://sadlyno.com/archives/003862.html
I find this entire tempest in a C-cup (sorry about that) ironic and a little sad.
Notice that there are over 100 posts on this article. Yet, right below, Oriana Fallaci dies---fearless female journalist, threatened with jail for daring to say something unpleasant about Islamicists---and there is posted but one comment.
Ironic, as I say.
The only reason I'm here is to see if you have any more pictures like the one Atrios posted. You are a god damn beautiful woman. Shame about the mind.
I suppose it's also ironic, then, that someone who thinks that this argument is "dull" and not about looks is allowing such stupidity to supercede something much more important.
If Dr. Helen truly admires the comments that Althouse made, then perhaps she should choose not to associate herself with him, as all she's doing is weakening and fracturing the debate with her absolute incomprehension of her own position, which is, in short,
"Althouse was exactly right about her: your 'three-quarter pose' was obviously a sign of complete submission to Clinton's greatness, as well as visual proof of absolute alignment with his ideals! No, wait, now I'm saying that it wasn't how you stood, but the fact that you were there at all! Wait, scratch that! Now the argument isn't necessarily about one person, but that very vaguely defined group who "fawn over, and show support for Bill Clinton--one of the biggest gropers and sexual harrassers around--all the while shrieking that if a man tries to touch them in a bar", simply because, as a Republican, I am unable to see a group as individual members."
So, Dr. Helen, when are you going to take that little vixen on the left in the blue to task for her three-quarter pose! No wait, being a woman and seen with Clinton! No, wait, being in that same "group of women" you're apparently taking to task in a slight of hand that could be described as one step away from a non-sequitor?
Tell me, did they teach you about *consistency* in graduate school?
Seriously people, the breast thing is getting really dull--I do not give a damn if women want to put their breasts all over the internet...
Or in your moronic brownshirt fuck of a husband's face...
Ah, another post that will never see the light of day, thanks to the free speech beliefs of Republican asswipes!
just so you know where Dave is coming from ..
Dave Abston, Vallejo, CA
I was at home, watching TV like nearly everybody else. Unlike nearly everybody else, however, I had no moment of great patriotic awakening or a burning desire to hang flags from every porch and car-radio antenna I saw. The attacks on the World Trade Center were the chickens coming home to roost after decades of Republican interference, neglect and incompetence in American foreign policy. How long do we, as a country, think we can get away with bullying and brutalizing other countries, slaughtering their citizens for the good of American "interests" (read: corporate profits), and supporting sadistic dictators as long as they toe the American line?
We've already killed more Afghans than died in the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, and the people responsible for that attack are still nowhere to be found. Now, based only on the desire of our unelected "president" to avenge his daddy's mistakes in a previous administration (and, by coincidence, guarantee huge profits for his Cabinet, cronies and family members), we are about to embark on another "lovely little war" that all of our allies and most of our own citizens are dead set against. The lessons are these: As ye sow, so shall ye reap, and, those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. God help us, every one.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2002/09/04/911stories11.DTL
.. directly from central casting.
Doc Helen, I strongly object to the use of "groper" as applied to Mr. Clinton. My blog is decidedly conservative, yet, my first initial and last name is G Roper. Run together it's GROPER... couldn't we just call him the serial philanderer? Please? ;-)
Notice, I always sign with first and middle initials. :-)
For someone who has a come-hither photo on your blog, you're really quick to talk about other's boobies.
It couldn't be that the opposition is actiually forming, or anything. I'm sure other moderates like Althouse will quickly swarm to, well, spend more time talking about boobies. That's what real feminists like you do, right?
Anonymous 1:14 PM - No, what scares me is how liberals will pursue their principles to a huge extent, then turn 180 degrees immediately when those principles are brought to bear on themselves and their power is threatened. And it's a major reason I'm no longer a Democrat.
That wingnut conservative commentator, Maureen Dowd, had something to say in October 2003 about feminism and Bill Clinton:
"But I find the selective outrage of feminists just as offensive.
"Feminism died in 1998 when Hillary allowed henchlings and Democrats to demonize Monica as an unbalanced stalker, and when Gloria Steinem defended Mr. Clinton against Kathleen Willey and Paula Jones by saying he had merely made clumsy passes, then accepted rejection, so there was no sexual harassment involved. As to his dallying with an emotionally immature 21-year-old, Ms. Steinem noted, 'Welcome sexual behavior is about as relevant to sexual harassment as borrowing a car is to stealing one.'
"Surely what's good for the Comeback Kid is good for the Terminator."
Chumley said... "Dr. Helen, you could be taken more seriously on this matter if you and your husband didn't post pictures of YOU wearing far tighter T-shirts than Ms. Valenti's knit top in the Clinton picture, thrusting out your breasts proudly. BIG double-standard."
No, despite what you think, the point really is that a declared feminist is posing with Bill Clinton. Dr. Helen has not done that.
Could you clarify Mr. Clinton's sexual harrassment for me? Having worked in male dominated industries most of my life - often being the only woman on executive staff - I'd like to know a little bit about which incidents involved sexual harrassment. I am very clear on Clarence Thomas's case which I think people didn't think was harrassment - am I wrong in that?
Since I do consider myself a feminist, I'm realizing, maybe I'm supposed to be suing some of these guys -
NahnCee said...
MoniCA
JessiCA
Any other similarities besides black hair and an adoring smile?
you're a tool.
this whole thing is fucking ridiculous.
Jessica is an intelligent feminist blogger - why the hell should she be getting shit from people because of a fucking picture. Honestly.
Dr Nipply:
Here’s a tip for looking less crazy. If you want to accuse someone of hypocrisy, you’ve got to start with what they believe, and find something they’ve done that’s inconsistent with their beliefs. Your beliefs don’t count for gauging someone else’s hypocrisy. If someone does something that doesn’t square with your paranoid fantasy plus their ideology, that’s not hypocrisy on their part. Sorry.
...from Majikthise
Have you got NOTHING else to blog about? This entire page is an ansolute waste of hard-drive space on the blogspot server. WHO CARES? Geezus, way to make a mountain out of an anthill. There are plenty of issues in the world to take on, rather than guttersniping someone over their breast size! Feeling jealous, perhaps? What's your breast size? I mean, comon - if you're going to breastblog at least own up to your own pair as comparison.
Sigh.
Insults certainly do convince others, friends.
Consider our friend Dave, referring to Glenn Reynolds (and "speaking" to Dr. Reynold's wife, incidentally):
"...your moronic brownshirt fuck of a husband..."
These comments certainly advance the liberal cause, don't they? They really do convince others. Because Friend Dave is so convinced he is correct that anyone at all who disagrees with him must be evil. I find it interesting how often so-called Liberals seem to attack others (say, Republicans) for tactics and approaches they themselves display.
Just as the majority of middle-of-the-roaders fear that Republicans are religious warmongers, many of them fear that Democrats are hysterical name callers.
Calling Glenn Reynolds a "brownshirt" insults the memory of literally millions of Jews (and others) killed by Nazis. It is not even an intelligent insult, and I was not surprised Dave followed it with his elegant usage of the word "fuck."
Yes, people like Dave really are the smart and intelligent future of the tolerant and accepting Democratic party.
And he goes on to describe Dr. Reynods as "moronic." Moronic? Well, I wonder what Dave does for a living. It better be far superior to a successful and well regarded law professor who is widely read on the internet.
I would argue the term "moronic" more closely applies to someone who would apply a Nazi insult to someone with whom she or he disagrees.
The more I think about it, the more I suspect the far Left wing of the Democratic party as displaying the trait of psychological projection, big time.
I shouldn't complain. The more "Nazi" comments, the more classy profanity, the more hypocrisy...well, that will lead to more Republican victories.
From the headlights in her tee-shirt picture and the drool that she writes down, it is clear to everyone that Dr. Helen fucked her way to the top, including her Ph.D advisor. It is also pretty obivous that Glenn Reynolds fluffed and bottomed his way into academia as well.
Nice nipples Dr. Nipple.
She doesn't even have particularly large breasts. The old lady on the left hand side has MUCH larger breasts, and she's probably a feminist too. Where's the vitriol about her globes, and her posing with Clinton?
Please, y'know? If you're going to blog about liberal / conservative issues, then blog intelligently. This post you've made is embarassing. Spin it anyway you want for your own edification and rationalization, but this post makes you look like a fool.
I suppose the one bright spark here is that you are woman enough to take your lumps by leaving the comments open. I just hope you learn enough to refrain making asinine blog posts about non-issues again.
I rank this blog post along with such news-breaking titles as "why is the sky blue" and "asians have black hair!! OMG!"
Anon (chickenshit)12:43 wrote: "There are plenty of issues in the world to take on, rather than guttersniping someone over their breast size! Feeling jealous, perhaps? What's your breast size? I mean, comon - if you're going to breastblog at least own up to your own pair as comparison."
You are part of the breast obsessed. Helen never mentioned the lady in questions breast size, just her ideational consistency. Your trolling is silly and oh so 7th grade. Is this the best discorse you can engage in? Why are you lefties so obsessed with sex and clueless to opression?
Trey
Anon (chickenshit again)12:50 wrote more drivel: "From the headlights in her tee-shirt picture and the drool that she writes down, it is clear to everyone that Dr. Helen fucked her way to the top, including her Ph.D advisor. It is also pretty obivous that Glenn Reynolds fluffed and bottomed his way into academia as well.
Nice nipples Dr. Nipple."
I have never met Helen's advisor, but I have read her professional work and it is solid. Come out of your own closet and let us read some of your scholarly work! I am not qualified to read Glenn's publications, but InstaPundit is a class leading blog. I would check yours out, but you are going incognito. And you are depending on Helen's class and ethics to not post your email. Pity, I would love to google you and see just what you are made of.
Again, sex obsessed. Massive projection methinks.
Trey
Absolute non-issue, breasts or not.
You made it into a discussion of breasts by linking to and agreeing with Althouse's post, who brought it up as a central argument for her thesis.
You claim that this is "not about breasts" but about posing with Clinton. Again, where's the outrage at the other women in the picture?
Oh, and I don't read KOS, sorry. Nice try though.
"for some reason it is so embarassing for you that you feel a need to continually demand we stop talking about it. I wonder why?"
Because I respected Dr. Helen before she wrote this blog entry. Everyone is entitled to one mistake, though.
The funniest part in all this is the nasty but very lame trolls from the DU/KOS/Huff crowd. I never imagined they were that stupid.
Oh but they are. This realization is part of the 'rude awakening' than many people, including myself, go through who have engaged in left-wing activism.
There's a quote from Engels that sums up the motivations of many progressive partisans - 'scratch a revolutionary and you'll find a chauvinist'. For whatever reason the left tends to attract a lot of very angry and damaged people. I suspect that they're attracted to the politics because it provides a license for their resentment and irrational hatred. But whatever the reason, it's a prominent aspect of the culture once you get beyond the slogans and posturing.
Theres got to be some reason that leftism, moreso than any other ideology, so often results in geno/democide. Ockams razor suggests that it's simply because they want to kill people.
Hey, give Professor Althouse a break. The world has changed a lot since she got laid.
When did Maureen Dowd become conservative?
I find this prurient interest in the body of a young woman FASCINATING. When I first heard about this, I went looking for someone posed ina bikini or topless - imagine my confusion when I happen upon a very dull picture of - people in business casual clothing! If you find something "provacative" in the pose of the young lady in the middle simply because she is not wearing an oversized shirt and slumping her shoulders forward in order to hide her "dirty pillows" something is wrong with YOU.
OT, but related:
I've really been offended this week by the star billing Clinton has gotten relative to Ann Richards' funeral.
I have never met Helen's advisor, but I have read her professional work and it is solid. Come out of your own closet and let us read some of your scholarly work! I am not qualified to read Glenn's publications, but InstaPundit is a class leading blog. I would check yours out, but you are going incognito. And you are depending on Helen's class and ethics to not post your email. Pity, I would love to google you and see just what you are made of.
Apparently, psychologists in the US are loonier than their patients. What the hell kind of psychologist engages in a hostile, aggressive diatribe directed at an anonymous nobody (a psychologist whose own identity is rather vague, I might add), and engages in baseless over-exuberances while chastising others for the same thing?
Seriously, you people need to have whatever licenses and credentials you have revoked and prevented from saying anything at all about the psyches of other people. Like the banal and solipsistic and egregiously dishonest Reynolds-Smith duo, you are all too ethically compromised.
If "women in shirts" are Dr Helen's turn-ons, I wonder how she gets any work done at the office?
She doesn't even have to download porn to gratify her sexual interests -- she'll just have to look around the office.
(Of course, this assumes that the women in Dr Helen's workplace wear shirts, and are not topless.)
Nicely done, Dr. Helen. You managed to get more than enough leftists to torpedo themselves rather here. All you had to do was point out problems in their views and *zoom* a mass of them come into your blog hooting and throwing feces.
...and they think they're winning when they do that. :)
What's truly mind-numbingly amazing to me is how the uptight-wingers obsess so much over blow jobs and semen stains and things most of us really would rather not hear about with an embarassingly transparent pathological fixation, while gleefully cheering on the true obscenity of cluster-bombing and napalming and torturing, raping and murdering civilians in a country that never even threatened us.
Your bloodthirstiness and obsession with the dirty laundry of others is truly sick.
I would have been flipping him a bird for making a fool of me and my gender.
LOL As if the women involved with Clinton are powerless. Poor women everywhere. Boo hoo. The women involved, including Hillary, have choices.
As for making a fool of you, how did you get involved in it? Did Bill know you were involved?
I think Clinton made very poor choices that hurt himself and others, including the country, but he didn't sully women everywhere.
Get over yourself already. You are not everyone's mother. You would obviously have done a better job than the mother's of the women actually involved with Bill.
Glancing through the comments I see a lot of reference to the "left". This is really about the criticism of an individual that was quickly turned into something about groups of people. Why must the self loathing immediately lead to grouping and labeling of people to fit your filtered views? It's not THE TRUTH, it's YOUR truth.
Another Anon wrote about my post typing: "Apparently, psychologists in the US are loonier than their patients."
Well, some of them are in my experience! But the real "loony" folks go to psychiatrists, they are the ones who give the meds.
"What the hell kind of psychologist engages in a hostile, aggressive diatribe directed at an anonymous nobody"
Hostile? Aggressive?? I have read some of that stuff, but aside from calling the Anon posters chickenshit, I have not been hostile. Pointing out hypocrisy can make people uncomfortable. THe truth often does!
"(a psychologist whose own identity is rather vague, I might add)" Check out my blogs! They are photo blogs. One is of my family, the other is more artsy stuff. No political posts, just photos. No breasts either! I tend to sign my name, which is Trey, and leave my link. It is humorous that you are another Anon who is criticizing me for lack of transparency! Sorry, was I being hostile? I HAVE posted one time using Anon cause the post was pretty snarky, and maybe I should not have left it. I mean, I was not comfortable posting it with my name, that should have told me something. Good point, thanks for calling me on that in a round a bout way. I won't post any more Anon. How about you? Join me?
"and engages in baseless over-exuberances while chastising others for the same thing?" I CAN get over exuberant at times. Likely my happy life and ADD are the root causes. But it is not baseless, I have a great wife and super children. I mean, I get down when I see how much the President is spending, and I wish that the border and immigration problems were getting more attention, but things are pretty much good for me and my family. I was trying to chastise the mean, crude, and adolescent posts that have pervaded the blog lately. Sorry I did not make that clear.
But while I disagree with your points, well, some of them, you made them well. I hope you keep reading and posting. I can learn from someone like you who is thoughtful but disagrees with me. Stick around and keep us on our toes.
Trey
I like the heading, "We don't support gropers except Bill Clinton", well maybe Robert Packwood also until he got a little too obvious and a little to old.
In the nipply picture of "Dr" Helen at Sadly, No! a question arises...is "Dr" Helen a mulatta? Or an octoroon? In any event, that "macaca" looks pretty high yella, to me.
pat patterson: The low point of the Blewinski scandal for me was seeing Betty Friedan (I had just read The Feminine Mystique) explain on CNN that you don't go after everyone who gropes: "After all, Bobby Packwood did us a lot of good." Domestic politics doesn't get any lower than that. (In foreign affairs, sadly, realpolitik with the morally challenged is more of a rule.)
I will note something else no one has pointed out: In the large flickr.com JPEG of this picture, the texture of her top makes her boobs far less noticeable: artifacts created by shrinking the JPEG makes them stand out a lot more. That said, Jessica seems to be in near-schizophrenic denial that posing for a photo in such a top in front of Bill Clinton is like me posing in front of Gerald Ford with a half-unpeeled banana in my hand. It isn't half about her (though she and some of the guys are way underdressed to meet an impeccably turned-out former President), it's who she's standing in front of. Had this lunch been an outdoors barbecue, likely no one would have noticed.
Ann's original post was entirely tame. She didn't even connect the dots. Likewise, the comments on that post are quite tame until until Li'l Miss Can't Be Wrong shows up, whereupon everything goes south rather quickly.
"Anonymous said...
In the nipply picture of "Dr" Helen at Sadly, No! a question arises...is "Dr" Helen a mulatta? Or an octoroon? In any event, that "macaca" looks pretty high yella, to me."
Just another beautiful example of why so many people are leaving the Democratic party.
pb said:
Ann's original post was entirely tame. She didn't even connect the dots. Likewise, the comments on that post are quite tame until until Li'l Miss Can't Be Wrong shows up, whereupon everything goes south rather quickly.
Not true. Althouse's original post was deliberately couched as rather obvious innuendo, using the classic "I won't say anything about...." gambit. And the very first comment in there referred to Jessica as an "intern," which was not only obvious innuendo (the assumption we were all supposed to catch being that "intern" is a euphemism for "fellatrix") but also rested on the demeaning assumption that -- being young and female -- she must not have been one of the invited guests at the event.
As a feminist, I'd be proud to pose with Clinton because he did more for women than any other President in my lifetime. So he likes sex. So what? That doesn't make someone a misogynist, even if they are a man who happens to like sex with women. (I'm a feminist who likes sex with men, and believe me, that doesn't make me hate or look down on men at all.) Clinton resolutely and psersistently nominated women to the highest posts in the land, even after the Senate repeatedly tried to stop him. Clinton's treatment of women in public was always impeccable (and as far as I know, aside from one or two UNPROVEN allegations that went NOWHERE despite a lengthy and costly leagal process, all his sexual encounters have been consensual ones with women who were of age and knew what they were doing). I never saw him offer an unwanted massage to Angela Merkel, for instance, or saw any of his female colleagues in government treated with any but the utmost professionalism and respect (no nicknames). He is one of few politicians I can point to who is married to a woman who has a high-powered career of her own; who is his intellectual equal if not superior; and whose looks, when they got married, made it virtually impossible to objectify her in the way Jessica is now being unfairly objectified (by which I mean, it's obvious he married for her mind and not her looks) -- AND IS STILL MARRIED TO HER despite the fact he could have virtually any woman he wanted.
To summarize: Bill Clinton's proven record, in all aspects, demonstrates absolutely impeccable feminist credentials and I truly believe he is one of very few men in public life who genuinely sees women as equals and not as an endearing but inferior species. As for unproven allegations, I don't have any truck with those. Sorry. When you've got something real to stack up against his public record, I'll reconsider. Till then -- speaking as a feminist -- Clinton is my President.
Raya:
"To summarize: Bill Clinton's proven record, in all aspects, demonstrates absolutely impeccable feminist credentials and I truly believe he is one of very few men in public life who genuinely sees women as equals and not as an endearing but inferior species. As for unproven allegations, I don't have any truck with those. Sorry. When you've got something real to stack up against his public record, I'll reconsider. Till then -- speaking as a feminist -- Clinton is my President."
And you, my dear, like so many women I know, have been taken in by a charmer who thinks no more of using women to service him than he does of using them to make himself look like a champion of women's rights to get his ass off the hook when lying like a dog. Good luck with your views and keep deluding yourself. It seems to be a common practice for some "feminists" these days.
My guess is that the young lady in question doesn't agree with your premise that Clinton is "one of the biggest gropers and sexual harrassers around, making your argument of irony / hypocrisy / 'the feminist that supports gropers' ring pretty damned hollow.
The comparison between this and the Katherine Harris / FOX News interview is equally ridiculous. While both ladies were clearly 'posing', you're ignoring the obvious differences in context. ...Or do you seriously not see a difference between posing for a memento and posing during an interview on national television while attempting to woo voters?
....And the right wonders why so many are not taking them seriously any longer. By all means, keep the outrage over 'Tittiegate' flowing. Nothing's better than witnessing the self-imposing of political wounds.
People have lost their minds.
Excuse me; you're supposed to be some sort of psychologist, is it? REALLY? god, what do you tell your patients when they come crying about being harassed (for make no mistake about it, whatever Clinton's history might be, in this instance, it's ANN who's the harasser, and has unleashed a number of truly vile others on top of it)? "Well, you really shouldn't have been standing in that position. Were you wearing THAT?"
Seriously, can you even HEAR yourself?
You make me ill.
ROTFL, it is great to see the lefties throwing themselves against a brick wall. They just keep spending that emotional energy throwing themselves against the wall. And it's still not moving or falling.
All your insults and cliches for naught. If you pause for a sec, you will realize there is nobody else there, just you and that wall that's not moving...
chirp, ... chirp, ... chirp ... *wham!*, ...
No, Your a tool!!!!!!!
Ha, I got you, I got you, AHaHAahH:AHhaHAHHAHahaHHhaahhHa
So, what you're saying is, basically,
"I haven't got an ethical or logical leg to stand on, I know perfectly well that like all the other semi-literate flying monkeys I have absolutely nothing to offer the world but nasty trivial bullying bullshit, which is why i rilly rilly love it when some other thoroughly mediocre 'stain takes down some uppity bitch who has the nerve to be both beautiful and accomplished down a peg; but hey, made you look!! made you look at my wankery!! which ALMOST validates my whole sorry soulless existence."
Sorry, bub. I got a LOT of energy for smacking assholes; it keeps me sharp. i certainly don't expect a human response, but i tend to think of it more as a punching bag than a brick wall.
You know, punching bag? sort of the same way you wankers treated Jessica? except in her case she'd done absolutely nothing to deserve it?
Hey, Dr. FirstName. Is this genius typical of your usual supporter? How proud you must be.
I don't suppose he/she/it is a client...
Althouse is old, insecure, ugly, and her titties probably hang down to her belly button. That pretty much expains her.
So, how old is that picture you have online here, Helen? Just where do your boobies stop when you have no bra on?
Herm. Lots of folks don't see Bill Clinton as this big time harasser. He was accused of harassment in a case that was not harassment on its face; even if the incident had occurred as alleged, it wouldn't have been harassment. (It would certainly have been inexcusably rude... but not harassment.)
Where were the numerous cases of unconsenting sexual interactions, if he was such a big harasser?
A+B = C
A - I like Breasts
B - Jessica has Breasts
C - I like Jessica
The meeting was not feminists for Clinton. It was about progressive bloggers and how they can coordinate with mainstream politicians. Jessica is a progressive blogger. Clinton is a mainstream politician. Just because she went to the meeting does not indicate she agrees with or supports all of his positions or his supposed sexual harassment, which plenty of reasonable people would disagree about. It was a cheap shot on Althouse's part. It was a disgusting display by many of her commentators and it reflects poorly on you that you jumped to Althouse's defense.
Anonymous 4:38:
The cheap shot was when these same "feminists" and their attack dogs went to Professor Althouse's site and to mine to stink the place up just because we had a different interpretation of events. It is disgraceful. Apparently, many on the left cannot stand the thought of a dissenting opinion (thus, they try to censor or threaten speech) and they thought they could shut us down by shouting loudly enough. Well, sorry, it didn't work. The disgusting display was by these "tolerant progressives" who just couldn't stand the thought that others had a different opinion on their own blog.
Anon 3:46 said something so offensive, beligerant, and downright stupid that I won't cut and paste it for fear of contamination.
So the liberal, progressive left gets offended by some criticism and this is how they respond? The unintentional irony is intoxicating! Frankly, I now HAVE to by Michelle Malkin's "Unhinged."
I wonder, are they just trying to derail the conversation, or are they disordered? That kind of liberalism truly is a mental disorder in the same way that David Duke conservatism is. I guess it will eventually stop or trickle down as I cannot image that such people ahve much of an attention span, but if it goes on too much longer I hope that Helen will take steps to stop the breast fetishist feminazis from polluting the bandwith here. I appreciate and covet thoughtful disagreement, but this lefty Springer show has run it's course for me.
Trey
I came here from The Anchoress, and this thread is an example of why I read the Internet. This is as close as my blood pressure will allow me to get to "Teflon Bill" (anybody remember that moniker from his Arkansas days?) and friends.
What I learned from this thread -- and I read it ALL -- is the shockingly willful amnesia of the Left. They respond to Clinton's long history of sexual attack and cover up with either: 1) prove it; 2) it was just "that Monica thing"; or 3) why are you harping on just a few little escapades. Are they that forgetful, or that young?
It reminds me of the novel 1984 that I read ioh-so-many years ago. Then, I naively thought people would never consent to having things they actually remembered being officially declared as "didn't happen" or "not that way at all." I find now it is the way of the world.
Could someone do me a favor and post a picture of Dr. Helen's breasts so we can change the subject.
Trey and Grateful:
This is why I often times leave this type of diatribe in my comments--everyone can see clearly the pathology that some of the "tolerant" far left have for those who do not conform 100% to their views. They twist information so that it wasn't as bad, never happened, or try to make others think they have mistaken history. Please.
Trey, as a psychologist, you can imagine the pathology that these people inflict on others, particularly those who are real minority groups or women who do not toe their party line. If you say anything they do not agree with, their borderline qualities and high, but unstable self-esteem rears its ugly head. So they over-react with a psychological punch in the face, when something more measured is called for. It will really win them some friends--not that they want any--they are looking for worshippers and converts. As for Michelle Malkin's book, buy it, it very much describes these utterly clueless mean, but miserable people. And yes, many of them should feel badly about themselves, given the way they treat others. Yes, it is fine to disagree with others, but the extent to which they take it is illogical at best and utterly destructive to their party at worse.
Helen,
That pathology is called Puritanism. It afflicts revolutionaries and visionaries. They have to maintain party discipline or the movement will splinter and lose momentum. They develop gulags for their dissenters.
The sexual priggishness you have seen concerning your pictures are a manifestation of their Puritanism. They think a tu quoque about your picture is just damning, damning, damning.
Their priggishness comes out in all the distortions and contortions they use to defend their position, since thier position can never, ever be wrong, or be allowed to be shown as wrong. We are watching the same dance in the Muslim reaction to the Pope's recent remarks. It is the same kind of totalitarianism.
Helen at 7:51 am
Why do you assume the blogger was a democrat?
Enjoyed your blog. I hope it pays off for you. I also have a blog that you might enjoy...
For all your naughty little leather obsessions… Leather Girl
Hey anon, guess you did this link after the one you posted to the "We thought" post. Ya know, I do not get the leather thing either! But, these were funny. I really like the way you made your point, I hope you stick around.
Trey
Jessica certainly has two good points there. Only one reason she'd be standing like that: yes, -someones- hand on 'er ass. Myself, I always enjoy leftist hypocrisy, for two reasons: I've had to learn how to spell 'hypocrisy', and because my neck never gets stiff at the computer while reading it and shaking my head.
視訊做愛視訊美女無碼A片情色影劇kyo成人動漫tt1069同志交友網ut同志交友網微風成人論壇6k聊天室日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞UT視訊美女交友..........................
The History Of A Problem
It is the Sexual Revolution of the 1960's. The male secretaries go to work in their micromini skirts and see thru jock straps, plus Playgirl stag ears. They stick their tongue up every vagina in the office and fuck their female bosses. The female bosses start tickling their testicles, patting their ass and hiking up their skirts to demand that their male secretaries "give it to them". The male secretaries stop slurping where they shouldn't and scream that they are being "sexually harassed". The male secretaries see no correlation between their own behavior and their self-created problem.
Hormonal Harassment
Giving men "unwanted erections" by exposing tits and ass or by wearing provocative clothing. There is no such thing as "being sexy". It is, by definition, hormonal harassment. Hormonal harassment is any expression of female sexuality that men find provocative. Exposed buttocks in thong bikinis, see thru bras, tight skirts, Sharon Stone style underpants, bare midriffs and exposed navels; it is all hormonal harassment. The legal chastity belt is for women only.
Post a Comment
<< Home